MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555528294 · doi:10.3138/tjt.4202c

The Universal Call to Holiness and Laity in the Church

2016· article· en· W2555528294 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian P. Flanagan

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCatholicism and Religious Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBishopsAppropriationConstitutionSociologyTheologyMagisteriumChurch historyProtestantismLawPhilosophyPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article argues that chapter 5 of Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, and its universal call to holiness, is a key text in understanding the council's teaching on the laity. The article outlines the history of that section during the Second Vatican Council, tracing the origins and development of the concept of the call to holiness in the schema on the church, as it moved from a discussion of vocation to the religious life to a wider appreciation of the various forms of one baptismal call to holiness. It then looks at the post-conciliar history of the call to holiness: first in official treatments such as the 1987 Synod of Bishops and Pope John Paul ii's exhortation Christifideles Laici; and then in practical developments such as the growth of lay pastoral ministries and laity-directed new ecclesial movements and the forms of holiness canonized in an expanded communion of the saints. Finally, it looks at challenges that continued appropriation of the conciliar teaching on the universal call to holiness might face in the future, and at how the renewal of this teaching might offer the church as a whole, including its lay members, a crucial resource in its mission to the world.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.029
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicCatholicism and Religious StudiesFrench-language works237,207